Turkish Maqam Music Practice by Yarman

Search For A Theoretical Model Conforming To Turkish Maqam Music Practice: A Selection Of Fixed-Pitch Settings From 34-tone Equal Temperament To The 79-tone Tuning Ozan Yarman1 Why we say “Maqam Music”, what does the term “Turkish Maqam Music” mean? First of all, at a conjuncture where we face expressions such as “Classical Turkish Music” (CTM), “Turkish Tasavvuf Music” (TTM), “Turkish Art Music” (TAM), “Traditional Turkish Art Music” (TTAM), “Turkish Folk Music” (TFM) and “Alla Turca”, each more cumbersome than the other, it is necessary to elucidate what we mean by the expression “Maqam Music”. It must be confessed that our music community lingers on a medley of concepts. As someone who received Classical Western Music formation, I am concerned by the sight I behold. What we have before us is a repertory notated on a single staff… lacking dynamics more often than not, prepared jejunely, with what instruments the scores shall be performed are not specified, there are almost no instrumental parts, no sign of instrumentation. Almost all the scores have been hastily notated in the near past. Moreover, it is not very clear which of the aforesaid categories the repertory falls into… For example, let us take the Hijaz sharki by Hammamizade İsmail Dede Efendi with the lyrics "Ey büt-i nev eda, olmuşam mübtela"… Is this sharki, which bears the characteristics of 19th Century, CTM, TAM, or TTAM? Consider, if it were to be performed by an instrumental ensemble comprising bağlama, kaval or kabak kemane also, what prevents them from being perceived as TFM? Similarly, let us look at the following works with the given lyrics: Hafız Post’s Rast “Gelse o şuh meclise, naz ü tegafül eylese”, Tanburi Mustafa Çavuş’s Hisar-Buselik “Dök zülfünü meydana gel” or Yesari Asım Ersoy’s Hijaz “Yar saçları lüle lüle”… Will they become CTM when the State Classical Turkish Music Choir performs them? Does a work acquire “artfulness” once it passes through the hands of TRT (Turkish Radio and Television Institution) that we call it “Art Music”? Or will they become TFM pieces in case the State Turkish Folk Music Ensemble renders them? Are not the listeners of these works “ordinary folk” already, that we establish a genre called Folk Music? I believe these are well-placed questions. It strikes me that we were excessively hasty in branding styles/forms differing in the slightest without the least bit of change in the texture of music as genres. Whereas, Western societies do not bother with such problems. The Classical-Contemporary genre, which encapsulates different performance styles and schools, is being transmitted to new generations via conservatories that (as the name implies) preserve the tradition, and evolves throughout history in an organic manner without severing its ties with the past. One may count every kind of performance tradition here, from violin or piano solos to 1

İTÜ Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Müzikoloji ve Müzik Teorisi Doktora Programı Öğrencisi.

1

gigantic symphony orchestras and choirs. In these performance traditions, twelve-tone equal temperament methodology dominates the scene due to the undisputed influence of the pianoforte since the past two hundred years. Besides the Classical-Contemporary genre, regional and popular musics such as Blues, Jazz, Rock, Country, Hiphop (all of which use a similar tuning system and notation due to the delimiting prevalance of guitars and electronic keyboards) and ethnic musics coming from old Western colonies to Europe and Americas should be recalled. World Music and Fusion type syntheses are among these. As is well known, the ones most sought after are Indian and Arab (otherwise, “Oriental”) musics. So great is the curiosity of the West in regards to cultures foreign to its own, that “Gamelan Orchestras” unique to Indonesia are founded in the music departments of some universities. Let us return to ourselves… It will be expedient to dissipate the confusion a little. I adopt the “Maqam Music” nomenclature for this reason. The saying “Turkish Maqam Music” ought not imply different instrumental ensembles, performance styles and manners, but – just as with ClassicalContemporary Western Music – the repertory based on maqams which are more or less the equivalent of keys/modes. Thereby, when the “Turkish” prefix is omitted, we may consider the works also based on maqams/dastgahs by neighbouring nations under the umbrella of “Maqam Music” – just as is the case with Brahms, Shostakovitch, and Copland making ClassicalContemporary Western Music despite the fact that they belonged to different nations. Hence, Abd al-wahhab and Umm Kulthum become part of our multi-cultural identity. Moreover, it therefore becomes possible to evaluate our Armenian, Greek, and Jewish musicians outside of the scope of a Turkish nationalism that, from time to time, borders chauvanism. As an additional reason why we do not say “Turkish Music” straightforwardly, we may offer the “Alla Turca–Alla Franca dichotomy” troubling us since eighty years. When we say Turkish Music, no music other than “the music made by Turks” is understood. Because no racial/ethnic distinction can be made between westernized modernist Turks and conservative Turks who uphold Eastern values, and because the East-West conflict still dominates a huge part of our lives, only saying “Turkish Music” does unfortunately nothing but confuse minds. How much of a Westen Music can “Çıktık açık alınla on yılda her savaştan” which incites the millions be regarded? This piece is not sung by Westerners, but our masses. What of the Popular musics that are in vogue since the 1950s? Such artists like Celal İnce? Erol Büyükburç? Erkin Koray? Cahit Berkay? Barış Manço? In the end, all these artists have most certainly composed Turkish Music, be it “without maqams” the way we recognize them, or in Western fashion, since they are the outcome of our culture before all else, and are Turkish in origin. To sum up, we dub “Turkish Maqam Music” the genre that necessitates a tuning which contains more tones compared to Classical Western Music, based on characteristic maqams, comprising many performance styles and manners, regularly performed on instruments such as tanbur, ud, kanun, kemençe, ney, bağlama, kaval and basically by people of Turkish origin or Turkophiles, and that which is mostly monophonic.

2

Search for a theoretical model compatible with practice It has been established on the basis of frequency measurements and analyses, that the 24-tone Pythagorean tuning is not a model suitable to express all the intervals of Turkish Maqam Music and does not suffice to compensate practice contrary to what is claimed (Karaosmanoğlu & Akkoç, 2003). It has been made manifest that characteristic middle second intervals representable by such superparticular ratios (based on the formula n+1/n) and roughly corresponding to 2/3, 3/4 and 4/5 whole-tone like 13:12, 12:11, 11:10 are particularly used in maqams such as Uşşak, Saba, Hüzzam, Karcığar, and that these are not haphazard deviations (Yarman, et al., 2008). During the “Music Reformation” period of 1920s and 30s (Paçacı, 1999), these intervals associated with Byzantine and Arabs and dubbed “quarter-tones” had been asserted as a pretext to reject “Alla Turca”. It is interesting that the controversial theory employed in practice and education today was formed just at a time when the tradition was under attack. The 24tone Pythagorean tuning and theoretical model based on it, whose foundations were laid by Rauf Yekta, Saadettin Arel and Suphi Ezgi, seems to promote a “Turkish Maqam Music” bereft of “quarter-tones”, and thus, far from being regarded as Arabic or Byzantine origin, and in the end, not provoking the response of the “Music Reformation”. Consequently, nonconformance appears to have arisen due to the brushing aside of “quartertones” in concord with the rationale stated above (Yarman, 2008). Recently, it is being debated how much sharper or flatter in terms of commas should the variable degrees of maqams which are not executed as they are notated be sounded compared to the theory based on the 24-tone Pythagorean tuning called “Arel-Ezgi-Uzdilek” (AEU). This disposition is surely due to the need to express middle second intervals not specified in current theory. Moreover, 32 or more frets from yegah to neva are affixed on tanburs today. In the same context, qanun-makers affix semi-tone mandals at logarithmically one twelveth of the octave by referring to tuners imported from the West, and divide the remaining length to the nut into six equal parts; in other words, they practically divide the octave into 72 equal parts without probably being aware of it. From this state of affairs, one may perceive that it is impossible for practice not to conflict with current theory. That being the case, to assure that there is no discrepancy between what is written and what is performed, it is necessary to develop a new theoretical model along with a proprietary notation faithfully embracing executed intervals, or to reinterpret and revise the notation at hand. Fixedness of pitch In Turkish Maqam Music, just as there are those who say that one should never under any circumstances venture outside the boundaries of the 24 Pythagorean perdes (tones), there are also those who set forth tenacious opinions such as that the perdes have no fixedness, and therefore may not be learned but “passed on by way of meshk (oral instruction)”. It is not possible for us to agree with either of these arguments. For one thing, characteristic middle second intervals peculiar to certain maqams 3

do not exist in the “Arel-Ezgi-Uzdilek” system. In order to compensate for these, additional frets are fastened to tanburs and mandals affixed to qanuns. On the other hand, there will inevitably be mathematical relationships between pitches. For instance, we shall be able to say that the interval between rast-neva, dügah-hüseyni, and segah-evc will always be a fifth, be it pure or tempered. Besides, qanun, tanbur and ney are “quantized instruments”, and in the very least, the pitches of the qanun and the tanbur remain relatively static throughout performance. Even if we were to accept that ney perdes are very flexible, it should be feasible to satisfactorily approximate executed frequencies by a high resolution tone-grid. In Western Music too do woodwinds, brass, and strings show deviations from 12-tone equal temperament (tET), but this tuning is able to satisfactorily represent played frequencies. Furthermore, instrumental education is geared toward 12-tET which is originally intended for keyboard instruments. To discuss how useful and necessary it is to take fixedness of pitch as a basis in music education is redundant. So, in order to lay the groundwork for a theory true to Turkish Maqam Music, it becomes a fundamental goal to incline towards a “microtonal fixedness of pitch” that shuns ambiguity but allows room for flexibility. A selection of fixed-pitch settings for Maqam Music In Turkish Maqam Music, amongst temperaments that equally divide the octave into logarithmic parts, we know of 53 and 72-tone equal temperaments. The first is being used since more than half a century as a theoretical tool to express how much sharper or flatter in terms of commas the variable degrees of maqams will be played (Aksoy, 1995). The latter is the elaborated version of the “12 equal semi-tones per octave methodology” that has come to be applied to qanuns due to interactions with Western Music. Both are very sturdy systems. 53-tET comprises the 24-tone Pythagorean tuning with maximum 1 cent absolute error. In any event, we insinuate it when explaining the theory in effect by saying that there are “9 commas in a whole-tone, 53 in an octave”. Above all, its indispensability in elucidating the 6 and 7 comma middle seconds peculiar to maqams such as Uşşak, Saba, Hüzzam and Karcığar is incontestable (Yarman, et al., 2008). However, we see in qanuns another system, namely, 72-tET. Between these two tunings, there are differences at certain locations that amount to as much as half a comma. In 72-tET, more detail is present. If a higher resolution than 53-tET is desired, the advantages of dividing the octave into 72 equal parts becomes manifest. Since we are soaring about so high numbers, I would like to mention a tuning I arrived at by dividing the octave into 159 parts and extracting from that 79 tones, which I implemented on a qanun manufactured by Ejder Güleç. The features of this system, whose generator interval is 15.1 cents or 2/3 of a Holdrian comma, are: 1. That the main maqam is, as was the case in the past, Rast, compared to the Çargah of “Arel-Ezgi-Uzdilek” which is defined as C Major (Levendoğlu, 2003), and that the

4

2.

3. 4.

5. 6. 7. 8.

principal scale of this maqam is expressed as natural (nonaccidented) notes on the staff. That, in accordance with the international diapason 2 which comes along with the usage of Western staff notation, “Süpürde Ahenk” (C key/diapason) is taken as basis where Rast scale more or less corresponds to the white keys of the pianoforte. That the 3rd degree, which is segah, and the 7th degree, which is evc, of Rast are acquired without breaking the cycle of fifths utilized in the construction of the scale. Again, via an uninterrupted cycle of fifths, that the 3rd and 7th degrees of the Rast scale are replaced by the higher perdes buselik and mahur, and therefore, modulation to Mahur is made possible. That myriad “middle second” intervals seen in practice are positioned between such points as dügah-segah, çargahsaba, and neva-hisar. That such procedures are repeated at sharp and flat tones as easily as on natural tones, and that it becomes possible to transpose over to every ahenk (key/diapason) on the qanun. That a 12-tone closed cycle is extracted for chromatic passages. That there are no inconsistencies in notation and that accidental symbols are adequate for microtonal polyphony.

The 79-tone tuning is a most suitable theoretical device for the transposition of scales to any degree with a maximum deviation of 8 cents at every step. In notating the System” developed by 2006). It is possible additional microtonal These accidentals are:

79-tone tuning, I adopted the “Sagittal Microtonal George Secor and David Keenan (Secor & Keenan, to express every comma nuance with only three accidentals alongside customary sharps and flats.

1. Left barbs raising or lowering a pitch by 1 degree & , 2. Right barbs raising or lowering a pitch by 2 degrees

&

,

3. Double barbs raising or lowering a pitch by 3 degrees or a quartertone & . Accordingly, the + = formula always stands. Sharps and flats are always 6 degrees, double sharps and double flats are 12 degrees, and the tones in between are found by adding to or subtracting from these the microtonal accidentals of the Sagittal System. Notation is very much consistent. We provide the 79-tone tuning and the traditional perdes collected in 17 zones below (Table 1). 2

A4/La = 440 cps

5

But what about tanburs? No matter how long their necks are, the frets which can be fastened are limited in number. We ought to think of the bağlamas as well. Under these circumstances, it might be necessary to focus on tunings “less voluminous” than 53-tET. These are, from small to large, 34tET, 41-tET and 46-tET. Their generator intervals are 706, 702 and 704 cent fifths respectively. In 46-tET, just as with 53-tET, there are two kinds of middle seconds, and it is an attractive system. If, however, we partition the octave into 41 equal parts, we can acquire the 24-tone Pythagorean tuning within tolerable limits and obtain at least one kind of middle second. 34-tET on the other hand, seems more compatible with the 17 traditional perdes outlook due to being divisible by this number. All of these are favourable for transpositions and polyphony. If asked that we choose one, 41-tET appears most ideal for tanburs. Bağlamas and qanuns can too be manufactured in conformance to it. We can conceive theory and notation from the beginning accordingly (Table 2). Nevertheless, if we seek more detail, focusing on 72-tET and beyond is unavoidable. In academic studies, we shall preferably move up to the 79-tone tuning. In that case, I suggest that we advance in two frontiers, choose either 34 or 41-tone equal temperament for low resolution, and converge on the 79tone tuning for high resolution. Table 1: 17 traditional perde zones in 79-tone tuning Degree

Cents 0: 1: 2: 3: 4: 5: 6: 7: 8: 9: 10: 11: 12:

0

17 Perde Zones Rast-C

2

Dik Rast

4

(Sarp Rast)

6

(Rast+irha)

8

(nerm Şuri)

10

Şuri

12

Nim Zengule

159-tET 0.000 15.094 30.189 45.283 60.377 75.472 90.566 105.660 120.755 135.849 150.943 166.038 181.132

14 16 18

Zengule cluster

20 22 24

6

Zengule

Ratios 1/1 126/125,100/99, 81/80 64/63,3125/307 2,55/54 128/125,36/35,3 3/32 729/704,28/27,2 7/26 25/24,117/112,22 /21 20/19,256/243,1 35/128 17/16,16/15,2187 /2048 15/14,14/13 14/13,27/25,13/1 2 88/81,12/11,35/ 32 11/10,54/49 65536/59049,10 /9

13: 14: 15: 16: 17: 18: 19: 20: 21: 22: 23: 24: 25: 26: 27: 28: 29: 30: 31: 32: 33: 34: 35: 36: 37: 38: 39: 40:

196.226 211.321 226.415 241.509 256.604 271.698 286.792 301.887 316.981 332.075 347.170 362.264 377.358 392.453 407.547 422.642 437.736 452.830 467.925 483.019 498.113 513.208 528.302 543.396 558.491 573.585 588.679 603.774

26 28 30 32 34 36

Dügah-D Dik Dügah (Sarp Dügah) Nim Kürdi (Nim Nihavend) Nerm Kürdi

38

Kürdi

40

Dik Kürdi

42

Nihavend

44

Hicazi Segah

46

Uşşaki Segah

48

Sabai Segah

50

Segahçe

52

Segah-E

54

Buselik (E*)

56

Nişabür

66

(Dik Nişabür) (Buselik+irh a) (Nişabür+ir ha) Nerm Çargah Çargah-F

68

Dik Çargah

58 60 62 64

70

(Sarp Çargah)

72

Nim Hicaz

74

(Nim Saba)

76

Nerm Hicaz

78

Hicaz

80

Uzzal

7

28/25,9/8 9/8,26/23 256/225,8/7 144/125 37/32,81/70,125 /108 7/6 33/28,13/11,32/ 27 32/27,25/21,81/ 68 6/5,19683/1638 4 63/52,40/33,17/ 14 39/32,11/9,27/2 2 16/13,100/81,21/ 17 31/25,41/33,46/ 37,5/4 5/4,64/51,59/47 81/64,19/15,33/ 26 14/11,23/18,32/2 5 9/7 35/27,13/10 38/29,21/16 33/25,37/28 4/3 39/29,35/26,27/ 20 19/14,49/36 26/19,48/35,11/ 8 11/8,29/21 25/18,32/23,39/ 28 7/5,1024/729,45 /32 24/17,17/12

Degree 1:

4

Cents 618.868

4 2:

633.962 4

3:

649.057 4

4:

664.151 4

5:

679.245 4

6:

4

7: 8: 9:

701.887 716.981

4 4

732.075 747.170 5

0: 1: 2: 3: 4:

5 5 5 5 5 5: 6: 7: 8: 9: 0: 1: 2: 3: 4:

762.264 777.358 792.453 807.547 822.642 837.736 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 6

852.830 867.925 883.019 898.113 913.208 928.302 943.396 958.491 973.585 988.679

159-tET

17 Perde Zones

82

Saba

Ratios 10/7

84

23/16,36/25,49/34

86

16/11,8192/5625,35/ 24

Saba cluster

88 90

22/15,69/47,72/49 37/25,40/27

93

Neva-G

3/2

95

Dik Neva

53/35,50/33,1024/6 75

97

(Sarp Neva)

32/21,29/19,75/49

99

(Neva+irha)

192/125,20/13,54/3 5

101

(Nerm Bayati)

45/29,59/38,14/9

103

Bayati

25/16,47/30,11/7

105

Nim Hisar

30/19,128/81,19/12

107

43/27,8/5,6561/409 6

109

37/23 Hisar/Hüzzam cluster

111

34/21,81/50,13/8

113

44/27,18/11,105/64

115

28/17,33/20

117

Hisar(ek)

32768/19683,5/3

119

Hüseyni-A4

5/3,42/25,27/16

121

Dik Hüseyni

27/16,39/23,17/10

123

(Sarp Hüseyni)

128/75,41/24,12/7

125

Nim Acem

50/29,216/125,64/3 7

127

(Nim Dik Acem)

125/72,40/23,47/27

129

Nerm Acem

7/4,225/128

131

Acem

23/13,16/9

8

5: 6:

6 6 7:

1003.774 1018.868 6

8:

1033.962 6

9: 0:

7 7

1: 2: 3: 4: 5: 6:

7 7 7 7 7 7 7: 8: 9:

1049.057 1064.151 1079.245 1094.34 0 1109.434 1124.528 1139.623 1154.717 1169.811

7 7

1184.906 1200.00 0

133

Dik Acem

16/9,25/14

135

Sarp Acem

9/5,59049/32768

137

29/16,20/11

139

Evc cluster

141

11/6 37/20,50/27,13/7

143

Nerm Evc

28/15

145

Evc-B

15/8,32/17,17/9

147

Mahur (B*)

256/135,243/128,40 /21

149

Dik Mahur

21/11,23/12,48/25

151

(Mahurek)

27/14,29/15,31/16

153

(Mahur+irha)

37/19,39/20,125/64

155 (Dik Mahur+irha)

49/25,55/28,6144/3 125

157 Nerm Gerdaniye

2025/1024,105/53

159

Gerdaniye-C

9

2/1

Table 2: Traditional perdes according to 41-tone equal temperament Degree

Cents

0 1

0 2 9

23

5

3-

6 7 8 9 10 11

Do ‡/Reb

8 8-117

5

Do Do ‡

9-88

4

Notes

Do #

1 46 76 05 34

Re d

1

Re d

2 2

Re ‡

2 63 93 22

Re ‡/Mib

2

#

3

15

23

-27 -30

3 51-380 144 10-439 4 16 68 4 17 98 5 18 27 5 19 56 5 20 85 216 15-673 7 24 02 7 25 32 26 7 61-790 28 8 20-878

Kaba …

II. Octave Rast

III. Octave Gerdaniye (Dik Gerdaniye) Nerm Şehnaz

(Kaba …)

(Dik Rast)

Kaba …

Şuri

Kaba …

Zengule

(Kaba …)

(Dik Zengule)

(Kaba …)

(En Dik Zengule)

Kaba …

Dügah

(Kaba …)

(Dik Dügah)

(Kaba …)

(Nerm Kürdi)

Kaba …

Kürdi/Nihavend

Sünbüle/ Dik Sünbüle

Kaba …

Segah

Tiz …

Kaba …

Buselik-Nişabur

Tiz …

(Kaba …)

(Nerm Çargah)

(Tiz …)

Kaba …

Çargah

Tiz …

(Kaba …)

(Dik Çargah)

(Tiz …)

(Kaba …)

(Nerm Hicaz)

(Tiz …)

Kaba …

Hicaz (old Saba)

Tiz …

Kaba …

Uzzal-Saba

Tiz …

Yegah

Neva

Tiz …

(Dik Yegah)

(Dik Neva)

(Tiz …)

Pes Beyati

Beyati

Tiz …

Pes Hisar

Hisar

Tiz …

Şehnaz (Dik Şehnaz) (En Dik Şehnaz) Muhayyer (Dik Muhayyer) (Nerm Sünbüle)

Re Mi

b

1213

Re

I. Octave

Mi (d) Mi (‡) Fa d

Fa ‡

Fa Fa #/Solb Fa # So lb/d l l‡ l‡/Lab l#/Lad

So So So So

10

31 32 33

-35

34

36 -37 38 39 40 41

07 37

9 9

La ‡

9 66

La ‡/Sib

9 951024

La # Sib

1 0541083 112 141

Si( d)

1 1

Si ‡

1 171 200

La

Si Do d

1

Do

Aşiran

Hüseyni

Tiz …

(Dik Aşiran)

(Dik Hüseyni)

(Tiz …)

(Nerm Acem)

(Tiz …)

Acem/Dik Acem

Tiz …

Arak

Evc

Tiz …

Gevaşt

Mahur

Tiz …

(Dik Gevaşt)

(Dik Mahur)

(Tiz …)

(Nerm Rast)

(Nerm Gerdan.)

(Tiz …)

Rast

Gerdaniye

Tiz …

(Nerm AcemAş.) AcemAşiran/ Dik AcemAşiran

References Aksoy, B., (1995). “Makamın Tanımına Doğru”. Trans. K. Ağartan. Musıkişinas. Boğaziçi University Turkish Music Club Publication. 2000. 70-87. Karaosmanoğlu, M. K. & Can Akkoç, (2003). “Türk Musikisinde İcra-Teori Birliğini Sağlama Yolunda Bir Girişim”. Presentation to 10th Müz-Dak (Türk Müziği Dernek ve Vakıfları Dayanışma Konseyi) Symposium. Maçka Social Establishments, Istanbul Technical University, 4 December. Levendoğlu, O. N., (2003). “Klasik Türk Müziği’nde Ana Dizi Tartışması ve Çargah Makamı”. Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, vol 23, nr. 2. Ankara: Gazi University Publication. 181-93. Paçacı, G., (1999). “Cumhuriyet’in Sesli Serüveni”. G. Paçacı, ed. Cumhuriyet’in Sesleri. İstanbul: Tarih Vakfı Yayınları. 1999. 10-29. Secor, G. D. & David C. Keenan, (2006). “Sagittal – A Microtonal Notation System”. Xenharmonikon: An Informal Journal of Experimental Music, vol. 18. Yarman, O., et al. (2008). “Türk makam müziği’nde nazariyat-icra örtüşmezliğine bir çözüm: 79-sesli düzen”. İTÜ Dergisi B, ISSN 1303-7013 (pending publication). Yarman, O., (2008). Türk Makam Müziği İçin 79-Sesli Düzen ve Kuram. Ph. D. Thesis completed in Istanbul Technical University Turkish Music State Conservatory Musicology Department.

11